How to select which supernatural to believe?

[Belacqua]

The other level is that it's not always clear what should be considered evidence and what should not be considered evidence. 

This is a tricky one, as I fully admit I do not know what evidence would convince me.  Certainly if something passes the strict testing conditions of something like the JRF million dollar test, maybe.

This strikes me as very strange. Why do we think that a scientific test could have anything to do with the supernatural? Science works as well as it does by limiting itself to certain natural parameters -- methodological naturalism. By definition, the supernatural would not be included in that.

Suppose a coin was going to come down heads, and a supernatural agent intervened to make it come down tails. How would we know this? Suppose a supernatural agent caused you to have a particular dream -- not predicting the future, just a dream. How would we know this?

Human minds evolved in the natural world along very narrow parameters. Our understanding of the world is structured in very particular ways. The idea that our minds necessarily include everything there is in the universe seems unlikely.

  In terms of religion-based supernatural proof, I actually like something I heard on a podcast recently.  The host said he, like I, did not really know what evidence would convince him.  However, if god is an omni, he *does* know what would convince me, and has failed to provide that evidence.  Therefore, he either does not care about my lack of belief (as, by being omni, he should be able to provide it and knows I would not otherwise be convinced) or, more likely, does not exist at all.

This is a version of an argument we hear a lot. 

"I know what an omniscient and omnipotent entity would do, and nobody's doing that, so there must not be such an entity." This puts a lot of confidence in one's own abilities. Human beings are very far from being omni-anything. How are we to know what such an entity would care about, or how it would operate?